Ehrman gets into the field of psychology when considering memory or the vagaries thereof. This puts him out of his field so he must quote other experts which makes for some interesting reading. He comments about a test conducted in the early 20th century in Berlin. There is a write up, here.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Munster/Wi...memory.htm
Thus rises the question that even if there had been "eye-witnesses" to any of this jesus shit how reliable would such accounts be?
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Munster/Wi...memory.htm
Quote:A few years ago a painful scene occurred in Berlin, in the University Seminary of Professor von Liszt, the famous criminologist. The Professor had spoken about a book. One of the older students suddenly shouts, "I wanted to throw light on the matter from the standpoint of Christian morality!" Another student throws in, "I cannot stand that!" The first starts up, exclaiming, "You have insulted me!" The second clenches his fist and cries, "If you say another word --" The first draws a revolver. The second [p. 50] rushes madly upon him. The Professor steps between them and, as he grasps the man's arm, the revolver goes off. General uproar. In that moment Professor Liszt secures order and asks a part of the students to write an exact account of all that has happened. The whole had been a comedy, carefully planned and rehearsed by the three actors for the purpose of studying the exactitude of observation and recollection. Those who did not write the report at once were, part of them, asked to write it the next day or a week later; and others had to depose their observations under cross-examination. The whole objective performance was cut up into fourteen little parts which referred partly to actions, partly to words. As mistakes there were counted the omissions, the wrong additions and the alterations. The smallest number of mistakes gave twenty-six per cent. of [sic] erroneous statements; the largest was eighty per cent. The reports with reference to the second half of the performance, which was more strongly emotional, gave an average of fifteen per cent. more [sic] mistakes than those of the first half. Words were put into the mouths or men who had been [p. 51] silent spectators during the whole short episode; actions were attributed to the chief participants of which not the slightest trace existed; and essential parts of the tragi-comedy were completely eliminated from the memory of a number of witnesses.
Thus rises the question that even if there had been "eye-witnesses" to any of this jesus shit how reliable would such accounts be?
